CONVICTION OVERTURNED FL - John Stelmack for child 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬, Lakeland, 2007

[Nova]

I'm sure many missed it as I really didn't know the right place to post it. But there was a VERY disturbing article recently concerning the use of "artificially produced" child and the hypothesis that the use of such lowers the rate of child abuse. Here's a link:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/209823.php

Link Between The Legalizing Of Child And Lower Rates Of Child Sex Abuse

Not buying it. Stelmack scares the putty out of me.

Why is it disturbing (other than the fact that child is always disturbing)?

And why don't you buy it, since at least half a dozen countries report similar trends?

 

[Missizzy]

Possibly of interest?

http://www.ecpat.net/ei/Csec_pornography.asp

".....Child includes not only the use of real children to make these materials but also artificially created imagery. This ‘virtual’ material is usually referred to as pseudo-child , and includes digitally created images and ‘morphed’, or blended, images of adults and children. ‘Pseudo’ in this sense, however, should be used warily. Its synonymic link to ‘false’ could have the effect of downplaying the exploitative significance of such imagery and its power to normalise images of child sexual abuse and to incite sexual exploitation of children (under the pretext of such not being ‘real&#8217....."

So, just what does the judge not agree with here? This is from the International Convention of the Rights of the Child.

 

[Missizzy]

Nova--It's simple to me. The depiction of children as sex objects is immoral, unethical, and plain wrong. No matter how the images are made, this is harmful to children and to society, IMO.

Studies have shown/proven many things that I happen to believe are way off base, per my own experiences. Plain and simple. JMO

 

[Nova]

Possibly of interest?

http://www.ecpat.net/ei/Csec_pornography.asp

".....Child includes not only the use of real children to make these materials but also artificially created imagery. This ‘virtual’ material is usually referred to as pseudo-child , and includes digitally created images and ‘morphed’, or blended, images of adults and children. ‘Pseudo’ in this sense, however, should be used warily. Its synonymic link to ‘false’ could have the effect of downplaying the exploitative significance of such imagery and its power to normalise images of child sexual abuse and to incite sexual exploitation of children (under the pretext of such not being ‘real’)....."

So, just what does the judge not agree with here? This is from the International Convention of the Rights of the Child.

He's an American judge and this is an American case. The definition(s) you cite are from Europe; they don't apply to this appeal.

Check out "Simulated child " on Wikipedia. Per that site, such images are illegal in Germany, but legal in the U.S. unless the images qualify as "obscene" under a different set of standards.

 

[Nova]

Nova--It's simple to me. The depiction of children as sex objects is immoral, unethical, and plain wrong. No matter how the images are made, this is harmful to children and to society, IMO.

Studies have shown/proven many things that I happen to believe are way off base, per my own experiences. Plain and simple. JMO

(Emphasis added.) I agree with the sentence I bolded, but not everything that is immoral should also be illegal.

What is the harm when no child is involved in the production of the image? I believe you have to prove harm to surmount freedom of speech protections.

 

[IWannaKnow]

Just because it is not illegal does not make it OK in my very humble opinion as a victim of such activities....I don't care what statistics the talking heads quote. Why do they go to so much trouble to manufacture it, then spend hours looking at it if it does not turn them on? Why not look at other types of if that is not their cup of tea? That is all they need to fill the nasty little hole in them and they will not perpetrate any children because they got their "fix" from these fake little pictures which are not harming anyone??? I'm with Izzy - I don't buy it.

All the greatest scientists thought the world was flat for a very long time. They were wrong.
In the interest of all the children, I would rather be safe than sorry. I think a child's safety, and right to a decent life trumps freedom of speech in this case, but that is just me.

eta: This is not directed at anyone in particular....just had to voice that opinion.

 

[reen]

Sentence overturned.

O.K. folks it's O.K. to paste the heads of little kids onto the bodies of half naked women.

Principal Stelmack is back in action. Thanks Florida.



http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/new...2010/12/report_judges_say_bizarre_cuta_1.html

"Unseemly"????? Really. How about "disgusting," "frightening," "vile"? My mind is wide open to lifestyle choices, and I can see where there really aren't laws being broken here, but it really sickens me. Let's hope it doesn't escalate to the point where we hear about him assaulting a child next.

 

[Missizzy]

Nova--You are absolutely correct. I was quoting from a European source. I quoted those words as they closely mirror my own philosophy. I believe, though, that several US states lave laws pertaining to artificially produced child . I will do some checking. Recently, a man in Missouri was jailed for having "cartoon" child .

You bring up a valid point about illegality and immorality. Please consider this article. There are other studies, also. I am not asking you to agree with me. I am merely stating my own opinion and my own experience. Child altered our family's history forever. Even though the rapist/photographer was put away for 10 years, his legacy of pain and shame will remain with us forever.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=9802655

Many who view child act out what they see

".....40 percent of child offenders are "dual offenders," trading in child and sexually acting out on a child. -National Center for Missing and Exploited Children..."


Our children's safety is far too precious to legalize any form of child , IMO.

 

[Missizzy]

Unseemly: Not proper or appropriate.

That would be akin to a school principal wearing a tank top and shorts to graduation or smoking in front of the school or using a nasty word in earshot of the kinders.

Stelmack's behavior goes WAY beyond unseemly IMO.

 

[Missizzy]

Here's our thread of the case I referred to:

Sugar Creek, MO man indicted for child "bondage cartoons" - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Sugar Creek, MO man indicted for child "bondage cartoons"


http://www.justice.gov/usao/mow/news2010/cordry.ind.htm

March 4, 2010

"....When [Martin] Cordry was arrested on Wednesday, March 3, 2010, the government’s motion says, he told officers that he had obtained a new computer during the investigation and had used a file-sharing program to obtain additional child . Investigators discovered more than 1,000 cartoon images of sexual assaults of children (including children in bondage) on an external hard drive, as well as 15 child videos on Cordry’s computer...."

and

http://www.justice.gov/usao/mow/news2010/cordry.ple.htm

PRIOR CHILD SEX OFFENDER PLEADS GUILTY TO CHILD ,
FACES AT LEAST 15 YEARS IN PRISON

"...According to court documents, Cordry was sentenced to 12 years in prison in 1994 for the rape and sodomy of a 7-year-old victim....."

and

more at link


I will admit that I have no idea if Mr. Cordry's sentence was based on the "real" child or the "cartoon" child or both. I find it interesting, though, that it is mentioned in both PRs by the Dept. of Justice. They surely didn't mention the fly-fishing or cooking videos he possessed.

Here's another link:

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2451


What Is Child ?

Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where

~the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

~the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

~the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

much more at link

Makes me wonder if the state will appeal this judge's decision.

 

[Nova]

Nova--You are absolutely correct. I was quoting from a European source. I quoted those words as they closely mirror my own philosophy. I believe, though, that several US states lave laws pertaining to artificially produced child . I will do some checking. Recently, a man in Missouri was jailed for having "cartoon" child .

You bring up a valid point about illegality and immorality. Please consider this article. There are other studies, also. I am not asking you to agree with me. I am merely stating my own opinion and my own experience. Child altered our family's history forever. Even though the rapist/photographer was put away for 10 years, his legacy of pain and shame will remain with us forever.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=9802655

Many who view child act out what they see

".....40 percent of child offenders are "dual offenders," trading in child and sexually acting out on a child. -National Center for Missing and Exploited Children..."


Our children's safety is far too precious to legalize any form of child , IMO.

That article is long on claims ("those who view it, do it") and short on evidence that the behavior is caused by viewing the imagery. In fact, it offers no evidence of the latter.

If 40% are "dual offenders", then that means the majority (nearly 2/3) of those who view child do NOT act out on a child. And it certainly doesn't prove that the 40% were driven by to harm children. (ETA: at another site (also provided to me by Missi, BTW) it says an additional 15% of child viewers were caught (unsuccessfully) soliciting sex with children. So it's not true that the majority who view it fail to act; a small majority who view child also attempt to take equivalent action.)

We don't execute people for drawing depictions of murder. Nor do we assume that everyone who sees such a picture will imitate the same act in real life.

I'm very sorry for the hurt caused to your family, but since you mention rape and photography, I assume the in question wasn't simulated.

Yes, children are precious, but the legal question remains: how are they harmed by something in which they do not participate?

 

[Nova]

Missi, 18 Section 2256 was struck down by the Supreme Court:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html


HOWEVER, Congress responded with a new law:

http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/05/23/ageplay-ban-clarified/



It basically says simulated child is illegal if it is "obscene" (has no redeeming artistic merit). I'm not sure how courts have interpreted that and/or whether this case will be a test of the newer statute.

 

[Nova]

Just because it is not illegal does not make it OK in my very humble opinion as a victim of such activities....I don't care what statistics the talking heads quote. Why do they go to so much trouble to manufacture it, then spend hours looking at it if it does not turn them on? Why not look at other types of if that is not their cup of tea? That is all they need to fill the nasty little hole in them and they will not perpetrate any children because they got their "fix" from these fake little pictures which are not harming anyone??? I'm with Izzy - I don't buy it.

All the greatest scientists thought the world was flat for a very long time. They were wrong.
In the interest of all the children, I would rather be safe than sorry. I think a child's safety, and right to a decent life trumps freedom of speech in this case, but that is just me.

eta: This is not directed at anyone in particular....just had to voice that opinion.

I don't think anyone believes simulated child is "okay."

That's why we're talking about legal issues. There's nobody here to argue the "child is good" side (whatever that would be).

 

[Missizzy]

I believe that children can be harmed by many things in which they do not participate--strictly because others can be negatively changed by those experiences. We are all in this boat together. Our safety and our life experience is inextricably linked to that of our neighbors.

Not all Americans are healthy and stalwart. Many are forever changed, for a variety of reasons, by viewing violence and . Often, when they act out upon what they have viewed, a child is harmed. JMO.

I fully agree with you that this issue is a slippery slope and one which can and will be debated for all time.

FWIW, played two roles in the victimization of our children. First, it was used to lower their inhibitions (by showing them what other children do) and secondly, pornographic photos were taken of them and used to elicit their silence....and shame.

 

[Filly]

Filly is no attorney. Filly has not a clue about most laws. Filly speaks of herself in the third person so that should tell you something.

This guy weirded me out big time more because one of the photographs (head) was of a student where this guy was the Principal. The other was a student from a former school where he taught.

We lost track of Principal Stelmack, but the good people of People You'll See In Hell updated back in 2009. Lots of law jargon.


http://pysih.com/2009/06/16/update-john-stelmack-is-convicted/

 

[Missizzy]

An interesting article with several links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_child_pornography


Simulated Child

 

[Missizzy]

Well, FWIW, Missizzy thinks that Filly is an expert in many many things. Namely good sense.

If I were the parent of the child who's little head was depicted, I would be far more than weirded out. I wonder if the family has any civil recourse available?

 

[Nova]

Well, FWIW, Missizzy thinks that Filly is an expert in many many things. Namely good sense.

If I were the parent of the child who's little head was depicted, I would be far more than weirded out. I wonder if the family has any civil recourse available?

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that would depend on whether the image was shared with anyone else, particularly if it were sold.

 

[Nova]

I believe that children can be harmed by many things in which they do not participate--strictly because others can be negatively changed by those experiences. We are all in this boat together. Our safety and our life experience is inextricably linked to that of our neighbors.

Not all Americans are healthy and stalwart. Many are forever changed, for a variety of reasons, by viewing violence and . Often, when they act out upon what they have viewed, a child is harmed. JMO.

I fully agree with you that this issue is a slippery slope and one which can and will be debated for all time.

FWIW, played two roles in the victimization of our children. First, it was used to lower their inhibitions (by showing them what other children do) and secondly, pornographic photos were taken of them and used to elicit their silence....and shame.

I agree with everything above philosophically. But whether that means all upsetting imagery can be made illegal is another matter, as you point out with your allusion to the proverbial "slippery slope."

But I am so very sorry your children were victimized. Whatever the contributing factors, and no doubt there were many, I am very, very sorry. I don't have any personal experience in this area, but I often wonder if the threats and the shaming aren't even worse than the physical atrocities.

 

[Nova]

I agree with everyone that this principal eroticizing photos of his own students is particularly disturbing.

I taught for many years, but at the college level. Even though my students were technically adults in terms of consent, thinking of them sexually never crossed my mind.

A couple of my former students have gone on to become fairly well-known actors and I see them on TV and movies. They're in their 30s now, but I'm still not comfortable watching them in erotic scenes, particularly ones involving nudity.

So I don't "get" this principal at all.